DCCJ4806/2014 S.C.S. FABRICATION CO LTD v. AF.EUROPA DEVELOPMENT CO TD - LawHero
DCCJ4806/2014
區域法院（民事）HH Judge Levy26/3/2015
DCCJ4806/2014
A A
B B
DCCJ 4806/2014
C C
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
D D
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
E CIVIL ACTION NO 4806 OF 2014 E
F F
-------------------------
G BETWEEN G
S.C.S. FABRICATION COMPANY LIMITED Plaintiff
H H
and
I AF.EUROPA DEVELOPMENT CO., LIMITED Defendant I
-------------------------
J J
K Before: HH Judge Levy in Chambers K
Dates of Hearing: 18, 19 and 27 March 2015
L L
Date of Decision: 27 March 2015
M M
-------------------------
N N
DECISION
O ------------------------- O
P P
The application
Q Q
1. By summons made under to s.21 (S.21) of the Evidence
R R
Ordinance, (Cap 8) and s.47B (S.47B) of the District Court Ordinance, the
S plaintiff applied for an order against the Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking S
Corporation Limited (“HSBC”), which is not a party to this action, for
T T
disclosure of documents.
U U
V V
-2-
A A
B B
C 2. In the summons filed on 28 January 2015, the plaintiff applied C
for an order in §1 and 2, that:
D D
E (1) The plaintiff by itself or its authorized agent or solicitors, on E
giving due notice, be allowed to enter the premiese of HSBC
F F
for the purpose of inspecting and photocopying the bank
G records in relation the the following documents G
(“Documents”):-
H H
(a) The account opening documents in respect of the
I defendant’s bank account no. 817-723380-838 held with I
HSBC (“the Bank Account”);
J J
(b) Address proof provided by the defendant and documents
K showing the defendant’s business address and K
correspondence address; and
L L
(c) Bank statements in respect of the Bank Account since 26
M March 2014. M
(2) Alternatively, HSBC do produce the Documents for the
N N
purpose of these proceedings.
O O
Hearings
P P
Q 3. At the hearing of the summons on 18 March 2015, after I was Q
told that the defendant had not been served with the writ and the summons,
R R
I acceded to the plaintiff’s application by allowing the dispensation of the
S service of the summons on the defendant believing at that time that the S
defendant could not be served, and further made the following orders :
T T
U U
V V
-3-
A A
B B
(1) Service of this summons on the defendant be dispensed
C with; C
(2) HSBC do within 14 days from the service of this order
D D
produce to the plaintiff’s solicitors the following
E documents : E
(a) The account opening documents in respect of the
F F
defendant’s bank account no. 817-723380-838 held
G with HSBC (“the Bank Account”); G
(b) Address proof provided by the defendant and
H H
documents showing the defendant’s business address
I and correspondence address; and I
(c) Bank statements in respect of the Bank Account since
J J
26 March 2014;
K (3) The plaintiff shall in the first instance pay the HSBC’s K
costs of complying with the order, which costs are to be
L L
costs in the cause; and
M (4) The plaintiff’s costs of this application be costs in the M
cause.
N N
O 4. After the making of the above orders, it came to my attention O
that the defendant was in fact a Hong Kong registered company. Since the
P P
order of 18 March 2015 was not yet sealed, I requested the solicitor for the
Q plaintiff, Mr Fong, to address me on the issue of dispensation of service on Q
the defendant.
R R
S 5. This led to the hearing the next day on 19 March 2015 in S
which hearing Mr Fong agreed that the court still retained the power to set
T T
aside the order for dispensing service, and that in the light of the court’s
U U
V V
-4-
A A
B B
concern, the summons should be served on the defendant. Thus I set aside
C § (1) of the order of 18 March 2015, and directed the hearing to be heard C
inter partes on 27 March 2015. The plaintiff was further directed to serve
D D
on the defendant together with the summons and its supporting affirmation
E a covering letter setting out the orders that I made on 18 March and 19 E
March 2015. Since HSBC did not object to the application and the issue of
F F
service did not concern HSBC, I had not required it to be notified of the
G hearing. G
H H
6. According to the affirmation of service the plaintiff filed on
I 23 March 2015, the plaintiff’s solicitors on 20 March 2015 served the I
defendant the above documents by leaving them on the defendant’s
J J
address of the registered office as disclosed in the defendant’s
K Incorporation Form (NC1) dated 23 December 2013 filed with the K
Companies Registry.
L L
M 7. Since the address shown on the said Incorporation Form is M
stated to be the intended address of the defendant’s registered office, I had
N N
doubt as to whether that address was indeed the registered office address of
O the defendant. O
P P
8. Mr Fong has very helpfully submitted to the court a copy of
Q the latest document index search of the defendant from the Companies Q
Registry that show a complete record of the documents having been filed
R R
by the defendant in the last 3 years. According to this index, the said
S Incorporation Form was filed with the Companies Registry on 6 January S
2014, which was, according to the search, was also the date the defendant
T T
was incorporated. After its incorporation, the search shows that there has
U U
V V
-5-
A A
B B
not been any notice of change of the defendant’s address. Thus, I am
C satisfied that the intended address is indeed the address of the defendant’s C
registered office with effect from the date of its incorporation.
D D
E 9. I am therefore satisfied that the defendant has been duly E
served with the documents and been properly notified of today’s hearing.
F F
G 10. The defendant up until now has not filed any response to the G
application and is absent from the hearing today. In the circumstances, I
H H
am satisfied that for the reasons that I gave on 18 March 2015 as set out
I below, the orders that I made on 18 March 2015, apart from § (1) of the I
order that was already set aside, should remain.
J J
K 11. The plaintiff’s costs of the hearing today be costs in the cause. K
L L
Background
M M
12. In this action, the plaintiff seeks recovery of a sum of
N N
US$101,95.14 having been paid into an account , number 817-713380-838
O held with HSBC (“Fraudster’s Account”) held in the name of AF Europa O
Development Ltd, (which is believed to be the correct name of the
P P
defendant, AF Europa Development Co., Limited), as a result of an email
Q deception. Q
R R
13. The plaintiff, is a limited company incorporated under the
S laws of Thailand, and the defendant is a limited company incorporated in S
Hong Kong which had never had any previous dealings with either the
T T
plaintiff or Tata Steel International (Asia) Limited (“Tata”), also a Hong
U U
V V
-6-
A A
B B
Kong limited company, with which the plaintiff had been conducting
C business. C
D D
14. The email deception, according to the plaintiff’s case,
E originated from various emails the plaintiff received from an email address E
of the sales manager of Tata on 26 and 27 March 2014. In these emails, the
F F
plaintiff was instructed, purportedly due to an audit of Tata’s account, to
G make a payment to a new account, which was the Fraudster’s Account. G
Having been deceived into believing that the instruction for the payment
H H
was from Tata, the plaintiff on 27 March 2014 executed a transfer of the
I said sum of US$101, 95.14 from the plaintiff’s bank account in Thailand to I
the Fraudster’s Account.
J J
K 15. On 28 March 2014, the fraud came to light when Tata K
informed the plaintiff that it had never sent the said emails or the payment
L L
instruction. A report was then made by the plaintiff to its remitting bank
M which in turn requested HSBC to cancel the said transfer which had been M
made to the Fraudster’s Account.
N N
O 16. On 31 March 2014, the plaintiff and Tata reported the O
deception to the police in Thailand, and Tata also made a report on 1 April
P P
2014 to the police in Hong Kong who informed Tata that the Fraudster
Q Account with a balance of US$38,574 had been frozen. Q
R R
17. HSBC has been duly served with the summons together with
S its supporting affirmation. By its letter of 13 February 2015 to the solicitors S
for the plaintiff, HSBC stated that it would not oppose the summons and
T T
would not be attending the court hearing. It also asked for 14 days to
U U
V V
-7-
A A
B B
produce the requisite documents should the court grant an order in terms of
C the summons. C
D D
18. As stated in the above, the name of the defendant is slightly
E different to the name of the Fraudster’s Account, AF Europa Development E
Ltd, which name has not, according to a company search, been registered
F F
with the Companies Registry. It is therefore submitted that the Documents
G will enable the plaintiff to verify the identity of the defendant in order that G
a correct party can be sued and served with the proceedings.
H H
I 19. The plaintiff explained that the application for the Documents I
has to be made due to the refusal by the HK Police to release - apart from
J J
confirming that the name of the Fraudster’s account is that of the defendant
K - any other information as well as the refusal by HSBC to provide the K
necessary documents without a court order on the ground of duty of
L L
confidentiality to its client.
M M
20. Apart from confirming the identity of the defendant, the
N N
Documents can also, the plaintiff submitted, aid the plaintiff in making a
O subsequent potential Mareva injunction application against the defendant. O
P P
21. The law in relation to production of banker’s documents and
Q generally of documents against a non-party is respectively set out in S.21 Q
and S.47B, and the rules governing S.47B, which are set out in Mr Fong’s
R R
written submission, are found in O.24 r.7A of the Rules of the District
S Court (“RDC”). It is a matter of good practice that a reference in the S
summons should be made to this rule: Hong Kong Civil Procedure
T T
2015(“HKCP”), p 582 at §24/7A/4. The plaintiff has omitted to include a
U U
V V
-8-
A A
B B
reference to this rule in its summons, which omission is inappropriate but
C is not an irregularity. C
D D
22. The test for an application under S.47B and O.24 r 7A of the
E RDC is relevance and necessity in respect of the documents sought by a E
party. If the documents are sufficiently identified and meet the criteria of
F F
relevancy and necessity, discovery ought to be ordered: see HKCP, p 583
G at §24/7A/6. G
H H
23. According to the facts of this case, it is necessary in my
I judgment, for the plaintiff to clarify the name of the defendant in particular I
that the correct party can be sued and the correct address can be found for
J J
service. The Documents sought in particular item (a) of the documents in
K relation to the account opening documents of the Fraudster’s Account will K
be of particular relevance in this regard.
L L
M 24. The address proof will likely be, in my view, found in item (b) M
of the Documents sought as such documents will help the plaintiff locate
N N
the correct address for the service of the proceedings on the defendant.
O Lastly, Item (c), the bank statements will, apart from throwing light on the O
identity of the defendant and perhaps also its address as well, also be
P P
relevant in enabling the plaintiff to consider whether a mareva injunction is
Q to be applied for. Q
R R
25. Having had regard to the circumstances of this case and of the
S nature of the Documents outlined above, I consider that it is appropriate for S
me to exercise my discretion in favour of granting the order. In the light of
T T
HSBC’s non-objection to the application, I do not think §1 of the order is
U U
V V
-9-
A A
B B
necessary. Mr Fong is also content with an order to be made in terms of §2
C of the summons. Thus, I grant an order in terms of §2 by giving HSBC 14 C
days as it has requested from the service of this order to produce the
D D
Documents.
E E
Costs
F F
G 26. According to O.24 7A of the RDC, HSBC should be entitled G
to its costs of the application and of complying with the order for
H H
production: HKCP, p584 at §24/7A/8.
I I
27. Mr Fong has informed the court at the hearing on 18 March
J J
2015 that he has telephoned and spoken to Miss Li, the officer of HSBC,
K who is the officer handling this application and that Miss Li has confirmed K
to him that HSBC would not seek costs of this application and would only
L L
require photocopying charges as its costs of the complying with the order
M for production. M
N N
28. Hence, I allow HSBC the costs of complying with the order,
O which costs should be borne by the plaintiff in the first instance and should O
be made the costs in the cause.
P P
Q 29. I order that the plaintiff’s costs of this application be costs in Q
the cause.
R R
S Order S
T T
30. I summarize my orders as follows:
U U
V V
- 10 -
A A
B B
C (1) HSBC do within 14 days from the service of this order C
produce to the plaintiff’s solicitors the following
D D
documents :
E (a) The account opening documents in respect of the E
defendant’s bank account no. 817-723380-838 held
F F
with HSBC (“the Bank Account”);
G (b) Address proof provided by the defendant and G
documents showing the defendant’s business address
H H
and correspondence address; and
I (c) Bank statements in respect of the Bank Account since I
26 March 2014;
J J
(2) The plaintiff shall in the first instance pay the HSBC’s
K costs of complying with the order, which costs are to be K
costs in the cause; and
L L
(3) The plaintiff’s costs of this application, including the
M costs of the hearings on 18 March, 19 March and 27 M
March 2015 be costs in the cause.
N N
O O
P P
(Katina Levy)
Q District Judge Q
Hearing on 18 March 2015:
R R
Mr Fong Sing Chak Jack, of Jack Fong & Co, for the plaintiff
S The defendant was not served with the summons and did not appear S
The Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Limited, a non-party,
T T
was not represented and did not appear
U U
V V
- 11 -
A A
B B
Hearing on 19 March 2015:
C Mr Fong Sing Chak Jack, of Jack Fong & Co, for the plaintiff C
The defendant and The Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation
D D
Limited were not required to attend the hearing
E E
Hearing on 27 March 2015:
F F
Mr Fong Sing Chak Jack, of Jack Fong & Co, for the plaintiff
G The defendant was not represented and did not appear G
The attendance of the Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation
H Limited, a non-party, was not required H
I I
J J
K K
L L
M M
N N
O O
P P
Q Q
R R
S S
T T
U U
V V
S.C.S. FABRICATION CO LTD v. AF.EUROPA DEVELOPMENT CO TD
A A
B B
DCCJ 4806/2014
C C
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
D D
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
E CIVIL ACTION NO 4806 OF 2014 E
F F
-------------------------
G BETWEEN G
S.C.S. FABRICATION COMPANY LIMITED Plaintiff
H H
and
I AF.EUROPA DEVELOPMENT CO., LIMITED Defendant I
-------------------------
J J
K Before: HH Judge Levy in Chambers K
Dates of Hearing: 18, 19 and 27 March 2015
L L
Date of Decision: 27 March 2015
M M
-------------------------
N N
DECISION
O ------------------------- O
P P
The application
Q Q
1. By summons made under to s.21 (S.21) of the Evidence
R R
Ordinance, (Cap 8) and s.47B (S.47B) of the District Court Ordinance, the
S plaintiff applied for an order against the Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking S
Corporation Limited (“HSBC”), which is not a party to this action, for
T T
disclosure of documents.
U U
V V
-2-
A A
B B
C 2. In the summons filed on 28 January 2015, the plaintiff applied C
for an order in §1 and 2, that:
D D
E (1) The plaintiff by itself or its authorized agent or solicitors, on E
giving due notice, be allowed to enter the premiese of HSBC
F F
for the purpose of inspecting and photocopying the bank
G records in relation the the following documents G
(“Documents”):-
H H
(a) The account opening documents in respect of the
I defendant’s bank account no. 817-723380-838 held with I
HSBC (“the Bank Account”);
J J
(b) Address proof provided by the defendant and documents
K showing the defendant’s business address and K
correspondence address; and
L L
(c) Bank statements in respect of the Bank Account since 26
M March 2014. M
(2) Alternatively, HSBC do produce the Documents for the
N N
purpose of these proceedings.
O O
Hearings
P P
Q 3. At the hearing of the summons on 18 March 2015, after I was Q
told that the defendant had not been served with the writ and the summons,
R R
I acceded to the plaintiff’s application by allowing the dispensation of the
S service of the summons on the defendant believing at that time that the S
defendant could not be served, and further made the following orders :
T T
U U
V V
-3-
A A
B B
(1) Service of this summons on the defendant be dispensed
C with; C
(2) HSBC do within 14 days from the service of this order
D D
produce to the plaintiff’s solicitors the following
E documents : E
(a) The account opening documents in respect of the
F F
defendant’s bank account no. 817-723380-838 held
G with HSBC (“the Bank Account”); G
(b) Address proof provided by the defendant and
H H
documents showing the defendant’s business address
I and correspondence address; and I
(c) Bank statements in respect of the Bank Account since
J J
26 March 2014;
K (3) The plaintiff shall in the first instance pay the HSBC’s K
costs of complying with the order, which costs are to be
L L
costs in the cause; and
M (4) The plaintiff’s costs of this application be costs in the M
cause.
N N
O 4. After the making of the above orders, it came to my attention O
that the defendant was in fact a Hong Kong registered company. Since the
P P
order of 18 March 2015 was not yet sealed, I requested the solicitor for the
Q plaintiff, Mr Fong, to address me on the issue of dispensation of service on Q
the defendant.
R R
S 5. This led to the hearing the next day on 19 March 2015 in S
which hearing Mr Fong agreed that the court still retained the power to set
T T
aside the order for dispensing service, and that in the light of the court’s
U U
V V
-4-
A A
B B
concern, the summons should be served on the defendant. Thus I set aside
C § (1) of the order of 18 March 2015, and directed the hearing to be heard C
inter partes on 27 March 2015. The plaintiff was further directed to serve
D D
on the defendant together with the summons and its supporting affirmation
E a covering letter setting out the orders that I made on 18 March and 19 E
March 2015. Since HSBC did not object to the application and the issue of
F F
service did not concern HSBC, I had not required it to be notified of the
G hearing. G
H H
6. According to the affirmation of service the plaintiff filed on
I 23 March 2015, the plaintiff’s solicitors on 20 March 2015 served the I
defendant the above documents by leaving them on the defendant’s
J J
address of the registered office as disclosed in the defendant’s
K Incorporation Form (NC1) dated 23 December 2013 filed with the K
Companies Registry.
L L
M 7. Since the address shown on the said Incorporation Form is M
stated to be the intended address of the defendant’s registered office, I had
N N
doubt as to whether that address was indeed the registered office address of
O the defendant. O
P P
8. Mr Fong has very helpfully submitted to the court a copy of
Q the latest document index search of the defendant from the Companies Q
Registry that show a complete record of the documents having been filed
R R
by the defendant in the last 3 years. According to this index, the said
S Incorporation Form was filed with the Companies Registry on 6 January S
2014, which was, according to the search, was also the date the defendant
T T
was incorporated. After its incorporation, the search shows that there has
U U
V V
-5-
A A
B B
not been any notice of change of the defendant’s address. Thus, I am
C satisfied that the intended address is indeed the address of the defendant’s C
registered office with effect from the date of its incorporation.
D D
E 9. I am therefore satisfied that the defendant has been duly E
served with the documents and been properly notified of today’s hearing.
F F
G 10. The defendant up until now has not filed any response to the G
application and is absent from the hearing today. In the circumstances, I
H H
am satisfied that for the reasons that I gave on 18 March 2015 as set out
I below, the orders that I made on 18 March 2015, apart from § (1) of the I
order that was already set aside, should remain.
J J
K 11. The plaintiff’s costs of the hearing today be costs in the cause. K
L L
Background
M M
12. In this action, the plaintiff seeks recovery of a sum of
N N
US$101,95.14 having been paid into an account , number 817-713380-838
O held with HSBC (“Fraudster’s Account”) held in the name of AF Europa O
Development Ltd, (which is believed to be the correct name of the
P P
defendant, AF Europa Development Co., Limited), as a result of an email
Q deception. Q
R R
13. The plaintiff, is a limited company incorporated under the
S laws of Thailand, and the defendant is a limited company incorporated in S
Hong Kong which had never had any previous dealings with either the
T T
plaintiff or Tata Steel International (Asia) Limited (“Tata”), also a Hong
U U
V V
-6-
A A
B B
Kong limited company, with which the plaintiff had been conducting
C business. C
D D
14. The email deception, according to the plaintiff’s case,
E originated from various emails the plaintiff received from an email address E
of the sales manager of Tata on 26 and 27 March 2014. In these emails, the
F F
plaintiff was instructed, purportedly due to an audit of Tata’s account, to
G make a payment to a new account, which was the Fraudster’s Account. G
Having been deceived into believing that the instruction for the payment
H H
was from Tata, the plaintiff on 27 March 2014 executed a transfer of the
I said sum of US$101, 95.14 from the plaintiff’s bank account in Thailand to I
the Fraudster’s Account.
J J
K 15. On 28 March 2014, the fraud came to light when Tata K
informed the plaintiff that it had never sent the said emails or the payment
L L
instruction. A report was then made by the plaintiff to its remitting bank
M which in turn requested HSBC to cancel the said transfer which had been M
made to the Fraudster’s Account.
N N
O 16. On 31 March 2014, the plaintiff and Tata reported the O
deception to the police in Thailand, and Tata also made a report on 1 April
P P
2014 to the police in Hong Kong who informed Tata that the Fraudster
Q Account with a balance of US$38,574 had been frozen. Q
R R
17. HSBC has been duly served with the summons together with
S its supporting affirmation. By its letter of 13 February 2015 to the solicitors S
for the plaintiff, HSBC stated that it would not oppose the summons and
T T
would not be attending the court hearing. It also asked for 14 days to
U U
V V
-7-
A A
B B
produce the requisite documents should the court grant an order in terms of
C the summons. C
D D
18. As stated in the above, the name of the defendant is slightly
E different to the name of the Fraudster’s Account, AF Europa Development E
Ltd, which name has not, according to a company search, been registered
F F
with the Companies Registry. It is therefore submitted that the Documents
G will enable the plaintiff to verify the identity of the defendant in order that G
a correct party can be sued and served with the proceedings.
H H
I 19. The plaintiff explained that the application for the Documents I
has to be made due to the refusal by the HK Police to release - apart from
J J
confirming that the name of the Fraudster’s account is that of the defendant
K - any other information as well as the refusal by HSBC to provide the K
necessary documents without a court order on the ground of duty of
L L
confidentiality to its client.
M M
20. Apart from confirming the identity of the defendant, the
N N
Documents can also, the plaintiff submitted, aid the plaintiff in making a
O subsequent potential Mareva injunction application against the defendant. O
P P
21. The law in relation to production of banker’s documents and
Q generally of documents against a non-party is respectively set out in S.21 Q
and S.47B, and the rules governing S.47B, which are set out in Mr Fong’s
R R
written submission, are found in O.24 r.7A of the Rules of the District
S Court (“RDC”). It is a matter of good practice that a reference in the S
summons should be made to this rule: Hong Kong Civil Procedure
T T
2015(“HKCP”), p 582 at §24/7A/4. The plaintiff has omitted to include a
U U
V V
-8-
A A
B B
reference to this rule in its summons, which omission is inappropriate but
C is not an irregularity. C
D D
22. The test for an application under S.47B and O.24 r 7A of the
E RDC is relevance and necessity in respect of the documents sought by a E
party. If the documents are sufficiently identified and meet the criteria of
F F
relevancy and necessity, discovery ought to be ordered: see HKCP, p 583
G at §24/7A/6. G
H H
23. According to the facts of this case, it is necessary in my
I judgment, for the plaintiff to clarify the name of the defendant in particular I
that the correct party can be sued and the correct address can be found for
J J
service. The Documents sought in particular item (a) of the documents in
K relation to the account opening documents of the Fraudster’s Account will K
be of particular relevance in this regard.
L L
M 24. The address proof will likely be, in my view, found in item (b) M
of the Documents sought as such documents will help the plaintiff locate
N N
the correct address for the service of the proceedings on the defendant.
O Lastly, Item (c), the bank statements will, apart from throwing light on the O
identity of the defendant and perhaps also its address as well, also be
P P
relevant in enabling the plaintiff to consider whether a mareva injunction is
Q to be applied for. Q
R R
25. Having had regard to the circumstances of this case and of the
S nature of the Documents outlined above, I consider that it is appropriate for S
me to exercise my discretion in favour of granting the order. In the light of
T T
HSBC’s non-objection to the application, I do not think §1 of the order is
U U
V V
-9-
A A
B B
necessary. Mr Fong is also content with an order to be made in terms of §2
C of the summons. Thus, I grant an order in terms of §2 by giving HSBC 14 C
days as it has requested from the service of this order to produce the
D D
Documents.
E E
Costs
F F
G 26. According to O.24 7A of the RDC, HSBC should be entitled G
to its costs of the application and of complying with the order for
H H
production: HKCP, p584 at §24/7A/8.
I I
27. Mr Fong has informed the court at the hearing on 18 March
J J
2015 that he has telephoned and spoken to Miss Li, the officer of HSBC,
K who is the officer handling this application and that Miss Li has confirmed K
to him that HSBC would not seek costs of this application and would only
L L
require photocopying charges as its costs of the complying with the order
M for production. M
N N
28. Hence, I allow HSBC the costs of complying with the order,
O which costs should be borne by the plaintiff in the first instance and should O
be made the costs in the cause.
P P
Q 29. I order that the plaintiff’s costs of this application be costs in Q
the cause.
R R
S Order S
T T
30. I summarize my orders as follows:
U U
V V
- 10 -
A A
B B
C (1) HSBC do within 14 days from the service of this order C
produce to the plaintiff’s solicitors the following
D D
documents :
E (a) The account opening documents in respect of the E
defendant’s bank account no. 817-723380-838 held
F F
with HSBC (“the Bank Account”);
G (b) Address proof provided by the defendant and G
documents showing the defendant’s business address
H H
and correspondence address; and
I (c) Bank statements in respect of the Bank Account since I
26 March 2014;
J J
(2) The plaintiff shall in the first instance pay the HSBC’s
K costs of complying with the order, which costs are to be K
costs in the cause; and
L L
(3) The plaintiff’s costs of this application, including the
M costs of the hearings on 18 March, 19 March and 27 M
March 2015 be costs in the cause.
N N
O O
P P
(Katina Levy)
Q District Judge Q
Hearing on 18 March 2015:
R R
Mr Fong Sing Chak Jack, of Jack Fong & Co, for the plaintiff
S The defendant was not served with the summons and did not appear S
The Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Limited, a non-party,
T T
was not represented and did not appear
U U
V V
- 11 -
A A
B B
Hearing on 19 March 2015:
C Mr Fong Sing Chak Jack, of Jack Fong & Co, for the plaintiff C
The defendant and The Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation
D D
Limited were not required to attend the hearing
E E
Hearing on 27 March 2015:
F F
Mr Fong Sing Chak Jack, of Jack Fong & Co, for the plaintiff
G The defendant was not represented and did not appear G
The attendance of the Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation
H Limited, a non-party, was not required H
I I
J J
K K
L L
M M
N N
O O
P P
Q Q
R R
S S
T T
U U
V V